Political prognostications are a risky business in the United Kingdom. But nonetheless I feel confident in making the case today that the dream of a better Britain, truly open to the world and free from the parochial constraints of the European Commission and single market, is over. To confirm, it is my belief now that the chance of the UK now leaving the EU is exactly zero.

To understand why, it is important to start with three basic but essential assumptions about current British politics:

The majority of the British parliament has never supported Brexit, and will never support a Brexit under a No Deal scenario,

There is no longer a majority in the country or Parliament in favour of a Norway option or a reformed customs union agreement, and finally,

Brexit has overruled party loyalty as the key determinant of voting behaviour in British politics.

Taken together we come to a clear conclusion: The British Parliamentary majority has always favoured, and continues to favour, a solution that allows them to ignore the 2016 referendum outcome. The only problem however, is that parliamentarians are rightly fearful that they will be punished by the electorate if they do not vote to leave. This key mismatch is at the core of the gridlock facing parliament today.

It is tempting, if not irresistible, for commentators to point the finger and lay blame on the other side for the current national mess that is Britain’s Brexit negotiation. But the most honest assessment is to recognise that once David Cameron ruled out the option of Norway+ being an outcome if Britain voted to leave in the 2016 election, there was no middle ground option left. In 2016 there was probably a national majority who could have lived with an adapted Norway or Swiss model for Britain. That is no longer the case. The polarisation and aggression of the two sides, both remain and leave, is so dramatic that only a clear exit from all EU affiliations and the single market, or a total rejection of the referendum outcome is acceptable.

With these three assumptions and the recognition of the partisan nature of the current Brexit debate, it is impossible to conclude that Brexit can occur. The only deal on the table that leave voters will accept, is an outcome that the majority of parliament would rather lose their seats campaigning against than allow to become reality. Indeed, it is no idle threat for Theresa May that pro-remain cabinet ministers today would willingly resign and support a no confidence vote against her and the Conservative Party, if it ensured a labour led coalition that would prevent a no deal outcome.

So how do we convert these political realities into predictions of the future?

First, we start by recognising that a second referendum/peoples vote is a dead end. There is no parliamentary consensus on the questions to be asked, there is no time to pass a bill for a referendum in parliament, organise it and give fair time to all parties before the vote, and, there is no guarantee that remain would even win the vote if it happened (in which case, the country itself would face a constitutional crisis).

Second, we must recognise that the EU has no incentive to extend Article 50 at this time. While the Chancellor and Business Secretary may blindly tell their city chums that it’ll be easy to extend, the reality is that there is little incentive for all 27 EU members to accept a continuation of this Brexit mess when there is no clear sign of what the extension will deliver. As mentioned, Theresa May’s deal is doomed because it represents a compromise, in a political context where neither side is willing to compromise. Thus, faced with no clear path beyond remaining or leaving, EU leaders will conclude (as Germany has done in its letters to the Times and other UK papers last week), that the best chance to reverse Brexit is now. Further, with the threat of a no deal in place, and no UK parliamentary majority for this outcome, the EU sense that this may be the moment to push for the UK to revoke the process, or at the least accept the current deal.

The final piece we consider is that without a deal, Theresa May no longer has any political legitimacy. Her entire identity and political capital stock is invested in her deal, thus in the absence of any support, and recognising that the parliamentary arithmetic can collapse the government and prevent no deal, Theresa May has to conclude that she must resign. It is therefore my belief that before the Article 50 deadline in March 2019, Theresa May will unilaterally revoke Article 50, then resign as the leader of the Conservative Party.

Again, I recognise this is an outcome that is so far off the radar of most commentators that is almost laughable. And yet, it has the strongest logic of any remaining outcome. If Theresa May cannot secure her deal, and is not willing to collapse the government to try and deliver a no deal Brexit, her last play is to claim that she has tried to find a deal but no consensus could be found. Thus, with the Conservative party lacking a majority, and its members unwilling to support the outcome of the 2016 election and their own party manifesto commitment to leave in 2017, revoking Article 50 provides continuity and certainty for families and businesses, while pushing the political question back to the parties.

If this sounds incredibly depressing and frustrating, it should be. The British Public were asked about Brexit twice, at the referendum in 2016 and the general election in 2017. Parliament has opted to ignore that and accordingly, the British public and British democracy will suffer for their choice.

First Brexit, then Trump, then Matteo Salvini, then Jair Bolsonaro and now Merkel is leaving after dismal results in German regional elections. Add in a Saudi assassination, a far-right Austrian, Hungarian and Polish axis in the EU and a constitutional change to make President Xi Jinping the new President for life…It has not been a good few years for the supposedly growing moderate majority of the world’s population, who apparently long for non-ideological, pragmatic and technocratic policymaking.

In Latin America, North America, Africa, Europe, the Middle East and Asia, populists are in vogue and established parties are reeling. The CDU and SPD in Germany are increasingly shadows of their former glory, but even they’ve fared better than the total annihilation of the French Republican and Socialist parties, not to mention Forsa Italia or the Socialist Party in Italy. Indeed, few social liberal democratic parties are doing well in any global context, nevermind a European one.

All of this poses a paradox. The world today is infinitely richer than at any previous point in history. There are no new ideological positions for developing a global economy, that have shown any evidence of gaining greater popularity than capitalism. Nor is there any sign that the world has become more violent or that global health has gotten worse. Indeed, to objective analysts the world seems to be doing really rather well. It is this analysis that is part of the problem.

Believers in centre ground politics believe that the majority of voters and citizens are rational. Given sufficient education, economic opportunity and information, political centrists maintain that the world will become less religious, less racist, less sexist, less LGBTQ-phobc and will prefer government policies set by highly educated panels of experts. Indeed the whole theory of modern liberal democracy and centrist movements like New Labour depends on these assumptions being true. But if they are true, why don’t we see people talking in favour of them, standing up for them and voting for these ideas, parties, movements and centrist leaders?

The answer, according to believers of centrist politics, is that the “silent majority” want centrist policies, ideas, parties and people, but they do not want to actively engage in the process. According to this theory, as soon as a candidate occupies the centre ground, where it has been abandoned, they will succeed. Indeed, the election of Emmanuel Macro and En Marche is held up as the perfect illustration of this phenomenon. The problem is that its wrong.

Politics is fundamentally a spectrum. There is no such defined place as “the left” and “the right”. What there is however, is a tendancy for society to cluster at points along the spectrum. Contrary to theories about centrist politics, they do not gather at the centre. Indeed, the reason why there exists a dominant political left party and political right party in every global democracy is because the number of people who truly seek out a “middle ground” is extremely small. Thus by focusing on the middle ground as a political tactic, parties actually alienate the majority of their constituency by chasing a small vote. This can work in an extremely tribal political system, where party loyalties is seen as a badge of identity and is often more important than the parties actual policies. But in the long run, parties that focus only on the centre lose touch with their base. This is the problem facing democracies today.

En Marche is the wrong lesson to learn. Electing a party consisting of a re-hash of Socialist and Republican candidates, run by a former socialist minister, who was ultimately pushed into power by a French public who were loath to support the National Front, is not an endorsement of technocracy and centrism. Indeed, the fact that Macron now has lower public opinion polling than his predecessor did (Macron now has the record for the most unfavorable reviews of any French President in the history of the French republic), shows that his political movement has little real support. Nor has the USA done any better. Rather than creating a fracture in the political right, the Republican party has embraced as its leader a dangerous egotist, whose attempts to sow division and hatred will leave scars across the national landscape that will outlast his own hotel chain.

There is a better way.

True democracies focus on addressing politics and how people feel. Worrying about trigger words, safe spaces, what is political acceptable to discuss and avoiding giving a “platform to hate” are terrible tactics that will end in misery and failure. What is actually needed is for centrist voters and politicians to hold their breath and dive into public discussions on anything and everything. Failing to engage with a problem is more dangerous than ignoring it. Nowhere is this guidance clearer than in the unmitigated disaster than is the European Union’s immigration policy and that of its individual member states (including the UK).

Governance is not meant to be easy. It is a service, not a stepping point for another career. The politics of the centre has believed that it is easier to talk about complex topics behind closed doors, amongst small groups of PHd armed individuals and then to return to the public eye with a flourish and say “we have studied and can empirically prove that this is the optimal way forward”. To anyone who has actually worked in business (and spoiler here, many centrists politicans and technocrats have not), the idea that you can make significant changes happen without buy-in and engagement with key stakeholders is laughable. If you do not explain the problem to people and talk about what the solutions are, then the idea will get nowhere.

Small steps could help moderate political forces take to move their agendas forward. Explaining a complex concept in an accessible way is among the most powerful. The impact of Blue Planet II on public and corporate attitudes to plastic has been phenomenal. Just as the original Al Gore film, an Inconvenient Truth, also helped transform the global climate debate. But real change cant be done by a film, documentary, art installation or music video. Certainly not on their own. Real change needs families, friends, co-workers and residents of communities to actually sit down and talk. Importantly, they need to get off their phone and do it in person.

It may be the case that the world is full of a silent, moderate majority. But if they don’t talk to each other and the wider world, there is only one obvious outcome. Political parties and their voters will move away from centre ground politics.

While Germany has long been admired as a leader in the clean energy transformation, notably for its package of energy policies termed the “energiewende”, the reality is that German industries have often born the brunt of these changes as have the tax payers. However, while Germany was able to absorb the hits to Siemens, RWE and Eon resulting from power sector reforms, the challenge posed by Electric Vehicles is altogether more serious. In this article I want to outline why, without a major new strategic plan, the global shift towards electric vehicles may not only up-end the entire German automotive industry, but transform the German economy as a whole.

First thing to note is how fast the Global EV market is growing:

It is hard to underestimate just how flat-footed policymakers have been, as have industry analysts, in predicting the uptake of electric vehicles. In fact, the growth has been so rapid that the International Energy Agency (IEA) revised up its original estimates for Global EV demand, such that The EV30@30 Scenario sees 228 million EVs (excluding two- and three-wheelers), mostly Light duty vehicles, in the global fleet by 2030. To contextualise this figure, the current light duty vehicle market is estimated at around 1.2bn, therefore EV’s will account for roughly 20% of global vehicles within the next 12 years[1].

In 2013 the world had less than 500,000 EVs on the roads. By 2017 this number had reached 3 million. To reach the IEA target (which many believe is still conservative), the Global EV market will have to grow by an average of more than 12 million sales per year. But that doesn’t look unrealistic, given that the current EV market is growing by between 40%-60% per annum.

But that number doesn’t tell the whole story. Current EV growth is not evenly distributed, rather it is heavily skewed towards a few key economies, with China accounting for 50% of Global EV demand, followed by the USA, then Norway[2].

Car companies can see the threat:

Whatever your personal views on Elon Musk, it is hard to argue that Tesla has not been a huge driver in explaining why global automotive companies are increasingly focusing on the EV space. As Forbes noted in its summary on the market in 2018:

“Porsche aims at making 50% of its cars electric by 2023. JLR has announced it will shift entirely towards electric and hybrid vehicles by 2020. General Motors, Toyota and Volvo have all declared a target of 1 million in EV sales by 2025. By 2030, Aston Martin expects that EVs will account for 25% of its sales, with the rest of its line up comprising hybrids. By 2025, BMW has stated it will offer 25 electrified vehicles, of which 12 will be fully electric. The Renault Nissan & Mitsubishi alliance intends to offer 12 new EVs by 2022.[3]”

However, while manufacturers see the need to pivot towards EV’s they need domestic infrastructure and demand to drive that growth. This is why Germany has a problem.

The German economy literally begins and ends with cars:

The German economic model is based on exports. Germany remains the World’s largest exporter, running a trade surplus in excess of 6% of GDP, and as of 2016, Cars represented 12.3% of the total exports of Germany, followed by Vehicle Parts, which account for 4.63%[4]. To put this another way, according to the German Trade and Investment (GTAI) association, the automotive industry accounted for 10% of German GDP in 2016[5].

The German car industry also explains the unique model of the German economy. Due to the highly specialised demands of traditional, internal combust engine (ICE) vehicles, automotive manufacturers have traditionally required an extensive range of specialist suppliers. This has not only helped to create the famous German “Mittlestand”, but also to sustain it. This has been essential to ensuring a distribution of wealth and job opportunities across Germany and as a result, the German automotive industry employed 825,500 people in 2018, generating a turnover of Eur 423bn and sustaining over 940 German businesses from OEM’s to parts suppliers.

But EVs are very different. By some estimates, a regular ICE vehicle has around 2,000 moving parts requiring exactly the specialists that Germany have. By contrast, EVs have 20[7]. This dramatic change is estimated to put at least 75,000 German jobs at risk in the car powertrain sector alone, according to research by the Fraunhofer institute[8] (up to 100k if the switch was faster than modelled). But as if losing 10% of the workforce alone wasn’t a concern, the other issue is that future car models won’t make sense to build in Germany at all.

Car manufacturing is driven by domestic demand:

Germany remains a minnow in the Global EV demand scene. It was only ranked 4th in Europe in 2016, and barely scraped 2nd place by new EV sales in 2017.

To add insult to injury, there were only 28,000 EVs in Germany as of 2016 (from over 2 million globally) and[9] even worse, the most popular EV in Germany isn’t even one of the multiple German brands, its Kia[10].

It is perhaps unsurprising then, that given Germanys considerable lag in entering the EV space, a number of leading German manufacturers have decided that they cannot compete with the lead that competitors have built up in parts of the new automotive supply chain. In a particularly embarrassing blow for German Industry, Bosch, “Germany’s biggest and most important supplier of car components[11]”, ruled in March 2018 that it wouldn’t even try and compete with the Chinese and Korean firms that dominate the manufacturing of batteries for electric vehicles[12].

So what does this mean?

It is clear that Germany has a formidably capable and resourceful industrial base. But it is also clear that the transformation of the EV market has caught Germany’s leading companies badly off-guard. Despite widespread anticipation that German car companies would easily and rapidly overtake Tesla, the initial feedback from the first wave of “Tesla killers” has been disappointing[13].

Time has not run out on Germany to adapt to the disruptive forces roiling the global automotive sector. But Germany is starting from far-behind and the stakes are high. A failure to adapt could mean more than job losses and faltering economic growth. It could mean an end to the German “Mittlestand” and the economic engine that built the modern Germany. What that means in a time of populist politics should give all German politicians pause for serious concern.

On the 21st of February 2016 I publicly advocated for the UK electorate to vote leave in the UK’s referendum on continued membership of the European Union. Between that time and the night of the referendum, I campaigned constantly for the campaign to leave the European Union, with my final public plea published on the 21st of June 2016. On the 23rd of June 2016, 17.4 million UK nationals voted to leave the European Union; a majority of 52%.

Since that time friends and acquaintances have often asked me if I made a mistake. More importantly, many of those who listened to my views during the Brexit campaign, and who voted Leave subsequently, asked me if they have made a mistake. It is for those who listened to me and who followed my guidance that I say this clearly: Brexit remains the right choice for Britain.

Brexit myths:

I want to start by dispelling some Brexit myths that have built up since the referendum.

It suits the EU negotiators to refuse to engage with the UK, to run down the clock and ignore proposals. This includes the use of technology on Northern Ireland’s border, which the EU’s own investigation showed was a feasible and practical solution. Smart and sensible ideas are being ignored by EU negotiators as part of the EU’s negotiating tactics. These tactics are brilliantly described by Yanis Varoufakis in his book on how the EU ignored extremely detailed, expertly modelled and internationally supported Greek proposals during their debt renegotiation with the EU in 2015. In short, ignoring sensible suggestions to force an ultimatum is a tried and tested EU tactic, along with leaking and selectively quoting private conversations. This is normal and should be expected. Importantly, it should be understood that the EU is trying to create a narrative that the UK is unprepared, but this is only a cleverly fabricated narrative. It is not grounded in facts.

Secondly, I want to emphasise that the existential challenges at the heart of the European Union, namely its democratic deficit, its growing illiberal tendencies, and the failure of the EU principle of solidarity, remain unresolved. As the famous pro-European, Hungarian philosopher Ivan Krastev recently noted, the EU’s continued failure to resolve the bloc’s divisions on immigration is straining the solidarity of members and even their adherence to the EU’s Human Rights Act. The rejection of drowning refugees by Italy is one recent example of this, and Hungary’s recent anti-migrant act is another. Moreover, despite the best efforts of strongly pro-European individuals, such as Guy Verhofstadt and Emmanuel Macron, to warn of Europe’s need for reform, the only concession that has been granted to these voices has been the creation of a small EU budget (separate from the EU commission budget). However, even this proposal is less progressive than it seems, because of a German-imposed requirement for funds to be linked to acceptance of migrants, thus immediately reducing funding to countries in Eastern Europe and increasing Germany’s receipts of EU funds.

Thirdly, while it has been popular for commentators to accuse people who voted Brexit of being racist and suggesting that the country wishes to revert to a little England mentality, the facts do not support their narrative. While Austria, Hungary, Italy and Poland discuss plans for an “anti-migrant Axis”, recent polling data from June 2018, shows that UK public attitudes towards immigration in the UK were more positive than at any time since 2011, a stunning rebuke to the initial rise in hate crime that immediately followed Brexit[1].

It is also important to dispel another Brexit myth that if the referendum were to be held again today the result would be different. The data proves otherwise. As of December 2017, polling from YouGov showed that 55% of the UK public thought that Brexit should happen, regardless of their original view on the referendum. Recent data all indicates a similar result. None of which is to say the current British government is doing a great job. It is plain for the British public to see that they are not.

Building a better Britain:

Rebuffing growing misinformation is vital, but the backbone of my belief in Brexit is distinct from these arguments. I believe in Brexit for the following reasons:

I believe Brexit remains the right choice for Britain because I believe it allows us to build a trade policy that is fairer to the British people, delivering better economic outcomes. While the US, Chinese and Indian economies boom, the UK is locked into a customs union with the slowest growing economic area on earth. As of 2017, 15 out of Britain’s top 25 trading export partners are from outside the EU, and 11 of those (including US, India, China, Australia, Japan and Canada) accounted for 36.4% of all UK exports. These trading relationships relied on the dreaded WTO rules. Amusingly, Canada has confirmed that the UK could have enhanced free trade access from the first day of Brexit. They will not be alone[2].

I believe Brexit will also make Britain’s immigration policy fairer. For immigration it remains fundamentally unjust that a doctor, engineer or an experienced entrepreneur will find it harder to work in the UK if they come from the USA, Canada, Chile, Japan or Colombia than an 18-year-old from France, Estonia, Portugal or Austria. Moreover, despite having a free-movement area with the EU, data from the UN overwhelmingly shows that British citizens would rather live in Australia, Canada and the USA than any country in Europe[3]. UN data shows that more Brits have chosen to live in Australia than all of Western Europe combined.

Brexit allows the UK to correct these imbalances and create an immigration system based on reciprocity that allows British citizens to live and work where they actually are trying to go, whilst building trade bridges with nations that are growing. Dynamic ideas to addressing these opportunities of new immigration systems and free trade deals include the potential of the UK joining regional free trade groupings such as NAFTA and the TPP, while others have also floated the idea of a new Australia, Canada, New Zealand UK free trade zone (CANZUK). I would suggest that the UK should explore new trade and visa options with dynamic regional markets such as the Pacific Alliance in Latin America too.

Lastly, I believe in Brexit because of the phenomenal role it has played in restoring British democracy. While the traditional major political parties in France, Germany, Italy, Austria, Greece, Spain and the Netherlands have almost all collapsed, or seen their share of the vote significantly cut, the British main parties have rebounded to their highest combined share of the vote in almost 30 years. It is not hard to see why. In the 2000’s Europe grew up with a political obsession for “middle-way” politics, a convenient euphemism for technocratic governance and offering voters no real choice. It was common to hear the refrain “they are all the same”, and why bother voting? The electorate didn’t see the point in voting, and UK voter turnout fell below 70% for the first time since the advent of universal franchise. It appears that if people are not offered a chance to vote for what matters to them, they turn to parties that will offer them that choice. Across Europe the radical left and fascist right-wing parties have surged. Many of them are now in government. Brexit has stopped all of this. The far-right is almost entirely annihilated in polling (with the only revival recently due to the risk of a soft Brexit), the Labour party is the largest political movement in Europe and the UK’s election turnout is at its highest in over 20 years.

Closing Comments:

Before I finish, I also want to address the recent news surrounding Brexit. It is clear that the Conservative cabinet is deeply divided by it, but reassuringly so is the nation and so are the Labour party. It can seem concerning to see bickering at a public level from the Cabinet, but the very fact that there are disagreements and strongly held views attests to the fact that the current UK government is reflecting a broader sway of stakeholder interests than it is credited with. The current UK white paper is a demonstration of this. While ensuring the UK leaves the Single Market and the Customs Union, it also ensures that the UK regulatory framework is aligned on goods with the EU so that businesses do not face disruption. Clearly this deal does not suit all parties, but this is the point of compromise.

The resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis are less controversial than the press would like them to be. The fact that they were staggered suggests an attempt to avoid triggering a crisis of confidence and a leadership challenge, as has been affirmed by David Davis. Secondly, it leaves Theresa May free to pursue a plan she believes in without cabinet members who do not endorse that plan. The greater risk does not come from the resignations but rather any further attempts by naïve and reckless cabinet members like Phillip Hammond to pretend that the Conservatives can repeal Brexit and escape without being destroyed and permanently dividing the nation. As the FT recently put it, the Conservative party is the party of Brexit.

It is easy to become disheartened by Brexit when the headlines often seem full of gloom, but it is important to take a step back. For every well-timed fear story like the Airbus threat to leave the UK, there are stories like Boeing committing to further UK spending and Australia awarding BAE UK massive defence export contracts. For every threat of jobs leaving London, like the 5,000 threatened finance roles, there are new commitments by companies like Facebook to employ up to 800 new staff, with office space for 6,000. The news will always try to showcase a clickbait headline, but if you can, try and ignore the noise.

Lastly we should not be afraid of a “no-deal Brexit”. Such an event would cost the EU over £100 billion, creating a continent wide recession, with the most severe impact being felt in Ireland and Germany. Given the growing anger and division in Europe over the increased EU contributions required by the EU’s wealthier states (Germany’s contribution will increase 16%) and how the shortfall in funding should be addressed, combined with the on-going battles over asylum, immigration and law & order, the EU would be suicidal to refuse to offer concessions in the face of a ‘no deal’. The path has been challenging and we are not out of the woods yet, so one should steel one’s nerves and prepare to witness continued anti-Brexit campaigning right until the eleventh hour. Just remember – Brexit is the best choice for the future of Britain.

[2] There has been a significant effort by the EU to scare Britons about the challenges of trading from outside the single market and relying on WTO rules. Lets put this in context: The EU’s average tariff rate for countries like the US, Canada, etc, was 2.3% on goods as of 2013 (spoiler: it has not increased since), while for cars the EU recently proposed reducing global car tariffs to zero. While many organisations have highlighted the importance of non-tariff barriers, i.e. different product rules & standards, it is worth noting that batteries (for electric vehicles), micro-chips for phone, computers and tablets, as well as basic raw materials, all enter the EU from non-EU members. In short it may increase some short term costs, but accessing a broader array of markets will make UK goods more competitive as further free trade deals are signed.

[3] To put this into context, as of 2017 the UN estimated that there were 3.8 million UK expats across the world. The largest EU locations for British nationals were Spain (308,872), Ireland (278,000 people), France (188,000), Germany (103,700) and Italy (72,000). Many of which are retired and not of working age. In the Anglosphere the largest locations were Australia (1,351,846), USA (748,206), Canada (624,411) and New Zealand (272,071).

From the 14th June (tomorrow at the time of this writing) the world will witness its 21st World Cup tournament, this time hosted in Russia. Football is an odd game to have conquered the worlds hearts. A sport popularised by the sons of aristocrats running around the wet and cold fields of England’s leading 19th century public schools, is now actively played by over 270mn FIFA registered players globally while the World Cup is the World’s most watched event, with 3.5bn people reached in the 2014 tournament.

But while the talents of the worlds leading male football players will fill the papers for the next few weeks, it is also worth taking some time to consider the impact that the World Cup has on national politics.

The World Cup can exert a powerful affect on national moods, not only on the host nations but also on those who participate. In 2006 as Germany hosted the World Cup, the nation witnessed the first large scale public displays of German flags and German nationalism, or as one German friend remarked to me “It was the first time in my life I felt it was ok to be proud of being German”. By contrast spare a thought for Brazil, who after financing the World Cup and the Olympics, crashed out of the World Cup against Germany in a 7-1 in what the BBC called one of the “Great World Cup moments”. Not only did the tournament torpedo the reputation of Brazil, it also destroyed the popularity of the national government, and when the full details of the lavo jato or “Operation car wash” scandal first started to appear in 2014, it was a matter of time before the acting President Dilma Rouseff was impeached and the Workers Party (PD) removed from party. Incidentally, Argentina’s subsequent loss to Germany in the final also helped sour Argentine national mood and along with Brail the country removed President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in 2015.

So, what is there to consider at this World Cup? Well firstly its hosts are not exactly in the international good books. Following large-scale arrests and investigations, it is widely believed that the Russian hosts bribed their way into securing the World Cup tournament this year. If that wasn’t bad enough, the country remains under heavy international sanctions for its illegal annexation of Crimea, alongside its involvement in the deaths of Dutch nationals in Ukraine and its complicity in Assad’s war crimes in Syria. Given this backdrop, President Putin sees an opportunity to distract the world (and his citizens) with well-executed games. If Russia performs well, the visitors are happy and the matches are exciting, the country will be given a strong platform to re-engage with Europe on sanctions whilst also undermining domestic political opposition. However, a loss in the group stage, followed by further corruption details and stories about Russian football hooligans would further undermine both domestic and international support for Russia.

But Russia is not the only country looking to the World Cup for a reputation boost. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia would benefit from stronger than expected performances, and while the chances of any Middle Eastern Team winning the cup are reasonably low, an advance to the semi or quarter finals would still provide a large positive PR boost to these middle eastern nations.

While for some the World Cup is a chance to build a positive PR platform, for others it is a welcome distraction from challenging political issues at home. A strong Spanish performance may help to deflect attention from Catalonian politics and the current governments relative weaknesses, while Angela Merkel would also gain from a strong German performance to distract from political in-fighting between the CDU and CSU over immigration policy designed to see off the rise of the AfD. In England, a strong performance would surprise the nation and provided a much-needed distraction to Theresa May during a torid period of Brexit discussions. Given the negative publicity surrounding Poland’s current government and its policies on refugees, judicial reform, coal power plants and running battles with the EU Commission, a strong performance from the country would further boost nationalist sentiment and distract from the countries wider challenges. Lastly in France, the Macron factor could receive a badly need boost, following the weak responses from Germany to France’s new EU reform.

Then of course there is Latin America, the only other rival to Europe is its wide spread fanaticism to the sport and its quality of national teams across the continent. Brazil hungrily eye revenge in this World Cup, and a strong performance (especially a win) could be an immensely powerful psychological boost to a country suffering from a prolonged period of economic malaise. By contrast, Colombia sees the World Cup as a chance to build on its strong performance in 2014 and as a way for the country to continue showing off its transition from a near failed state in 2000, to a vibrant and dynamic society, recently approved to join the OECD and eager to encourage tourism and investment.

Across all of these countries and the host of others I haven’t mentioned, the biggest immediate impact of the World Cup is domestic retail spending. When Italy failed to qualify for the World Cup, Bloomberg estimated the cost at 1 billion euros. As each country advances, or crashes out, the countries bars, restaurants, shops and treasury departments will feel the impact. While this may only be small, a good-will spending mood going into the summer can be a powerful driver of economic momentum.

Lastly spare a thought for young Iceland. As a country of under 400,000 people it has the ability to truly upset the footballing world. Not only would a series of Icelandic victories likely lead to a record number of google searches for “where is Iceland” but more importantly it would drive home the question that many sports fans, players, investors and commentators have long asked: “Is football about money, or about the passion of the team and how they work together?”…….well maybe I am stretching a bit here, as the more likely question will probably be “how the hell did they win when we cant even qualify”? Nonetheless, the symbolism of an underdog succeeding is a powerful image in sport and a powerful tool for domestic identity building.

So while you enjoy the games during this World Cup, spare a thought for what the win or loss may mean for those competing. The consequences may be bigger than you realise.

Possibly one of the most engaging podcasts of 2017 for me was a show called “Talking Politics”, a Cambridge University show hosted by a historian called David Runciman. While Professor Runciman covers a number of fascinating topics on the show, his most memorable is a recording of a lecture he gave based on his latest book “How Democracy Ends”. The talk itself excellent and the link is available here. The key takeaway of David’s talk is that democracy as we know it is extremely young and liable to fail, but its cause for failing is unlikely to look familiar to anything we have seen before. In this regard, the comparisons between modern times with the 1930s (See Macron’s recent OECD speech), are at best lazy and at worst dangerous. The risk is not the collapse of democracy we have seen before, but rather the challenges to democracy which we have not even realised are undermining democracy. All of which begs the question: if there are signs that democracy is failing, then are we even looking in the right place? Which in turn brings me to the future of the European Union.

Today politicians, pundits and the press comment tirelessly on Trump, Orban, Erdogan, Putin and a range of other global “strongmen”, whose actions are closely scrutinised under the micros-scope of historical comparative analysis. In this regard, I believe that we are falling into Runciman’s trap of focusing on the wrong challenges to Democracy. I want to offer a different perspective. The greatest threats to democracy today are not coming from Trump, Brexit, Putin or Xi Jinping. Rather the greatest threat to the Democracy today is that political discourse, institutions and policies are focused on the wrong issues. Nowhere is this trend more apparent to me than in the European Union.

For the EU to survive, thrive and evolve, it needs to stop focusing on how to bully members like Poland and Hungary, impoverish members such as Italy and Greece, punish close allies like the UK and ignore crucial strategic partners like Turkey. An EU that retains its membership by fear of the economic consequences that leaving will entail (see Greece in 2014 and current threats in the Brexit negotiation today), rather than by promising and providing an exciting vision of a better future, is doomed to failure. Democracy in Europe will not end because countries vote to leave the EU or because citizens across the union hold different social values on immigration, human rights and economic opportunities. Rather, democracy will end because the cost of leaving the EU becomes so great that accepting technocratic governments in perpetuity becomes the default position for a public, whose increasing frustration with the inability to affect real change in their country leads to anger, then despair and finally total disengagement with the political process.

The EU needs to reflect on its history, the pillars that made it successful, the flexibility it showed as it grew and the positivism it gave to its citizens. The EU was built by people who believed the nation state could be swept away by a new identity, a “European identity”, which would create a sense of continent wide solidarity between citizens. We see this very approach today in the existence of the Schengen zone, the ERASMUS program, the joint funding of agencies like ESA, Frontex, and new EU national symbols such as a flag, an anthem and a series of diplomatic embassies abroad. But while the idea of a United States of Europe may have been the dream of the bureaucrats who built the EU’s institutions, it has never been the desire of the population of Europe. It is because of this disconnect and the lack of clear accountability between the EU institutions and EU citizens on this issue, that the future survival of the EU is at stake.

In less than ten years, a project that took over seventy years to construct is about to lose its second largest net budget contributor (The UK), it has converted the most pro-EU country into a nation whose governing coalition are explicitly anti-Europe (Italy), it has allowed an autocrat to take control of a key central European economy on an anti-EU ticket (Hungary), meanwhile facilitating the rise of anti-EU parties to become the second and third largest political parties in Europe’s core (France and Germany).

When residents of EU countries are asked if they would like to leave the EU, the majority are solidly against such an idea. But every day political parties and political movements against Europe are getting stronger and stronger and that certainty is fading. The problem is not, as many EU supporters believe, that Russia and/or fox news are spreading fake news and corrupting local politics (though I am sure they’d love to if they could). The problem is that there the EU is unable to articulate a future vision that resonates with the wishes of the EU’s own citizens and provides them with an exciting future to work towards.

If the best future outcome is a United States of Europe, then make the case. Explain the need for a European response to global issues, the merits of fiscal solidarity alongside monetary solidarity and the case for continued subsidies for poorer members, to reduce the pressure of internal migration on richer members. But the EU does not make the case.

If the future is to be a two-speed Europe, with a membership for countries like Turkey, the UK, Norway, Ukraine and potentially even more peripheral members such as Morocco, Israel or Russia, then make the case. Maintain a eurozone core, allow divergence from certain core competencies in the outer core and allow parties to decide which projects and programs they wish to contribute to and engage with. But again the EU does not make this case.

Many Europhiles think these comments are unfair. The issue, they would argue, is not that the EU does not have a clear vision but rather that the national governments of Europe are too afraid of their electorates to promote a United Vision of Europe. There is certainty truth in this. In referendums on an EU treaty, France and the Netherlands voted “No” in 2005, Ireland voted “No” to Lisbon in 2007, The Netherlands voted “No” to allowing greater visa access to Ukraine in 2015 and the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016. All of which brings us back to the question of why is the EU so unpopular today and how can it change it?

I believe that the EU’s existential crisis is a direct result of the systems disconnection from democracy. It is not enough to simply suggest that electing MEPs shows that the EU is a democratic insitution. The EU now controls vital national issues such as migration, citizens’ rights, agriculture, trading relations with other nations, foreign affairs and a slew of other issues. These areas affect EU nationals every day and yet the mechanisms to change these policies are completely beyond the scope of any one nation. To change migration for example, a citizen of France would need every EU national to vote for MEPs in their countries who wanted to change migration, they would then need to get every EU national to vote for national governments who sit on the Council of Europe so they also vote to change migration. They would then need to lobby the EU commission and if a treaty change is needed, they may need a referendum in certain countries. At almost all stages, a lack of unanimity can end the whole process, see the near collapse of thee free trade deal with Canada over less than 100,000 angry Belgian farmers (500mn people almost ignored because of 100,000).

This complete lack of responsiveness to change is at the heart of why the UK is leaving, Italy could potential leave and many other Eurosceptic parties across Europe believe that their own exist from the EU is a matter of time. While the EU focuses on trade deals abroad, beating up US tech companies, punishing the UK for the EU’s own inflexibility and begging Turkey and Libya to avoid more mass migration into Europe, the EU is failing to tackle the real issues. The lack of a vision for the future and the lack of democratic accountability within the EU are the single largest issues facing the Unions survival and they are being ignored. The consequences of the EU’s continued failure on these issues will be dire: The failure of democracy within the EU itself.

It was probably inevitable, but the crisis engulfing Facebook is one of the most embarrassing examples of Silicon valleys hubris in the last two decades.

A company that specialises in connecting people, an exercise that requires people to trust the platform as a place to share content, has managed to simultaneously violate that trust and act totally surprised in doing so. When Facebook was first created it was a place for university students to share stories, an occasional photo and talk to friends when they couldn’t afford to call abroad. Today it is a business platform for multinational corporates, a virtual monopoly in the global social media world (excluding the great digital firewalls of China and Russia), as well as the largest surveillance mechanism ever created by man. If the apocryphal tales that Facebook was created by the CIA ever become more than conspiracy theories, I would take the agents out for a beer. It’s hard to imagine them being more successful in manipulating billions of people to hand over the most intimate details of their life than Facebook.

But what do we do about it? Facebook IS the only platform where everyone can find a friend, family member or old classmate from their school days. It also owns Whatsapp, Instagram and nearly brought out Snapchat (before deciding it was cheaper just to copy all of their ideas into Instagram instead). Indeed, the monopoly is alive and very well in the social media space. So much for a dynamic and free market that internet radicals long predicted.

The issue with Facebook is that it has transcended its role as a tech company and become a global public good, much in the way that GPS, SWIFT and Wikipedia have done. This conflict between its corporate needs and Facebooks public nature is at the heart of the conundrum that is threatening Facebooks future role as the global sharing platform.

There may come a time where individuals lose their inhibitions and learn to accept the flawed nature of humanity, such that the embarrassing university photos and awkward Facebook status of our childhood become nothing more than a source of amusement. But we are not there yet.

In the interim the most radical solution may yet be the one true way to ensure the eternal legacy of Zuckerberg’s creation: turn the company into a global charity with an international non-partisan board. Such a solution has long been muted for Twitter, another social media company that serves a clear public good, but unlike Facebook it has lacked the will (some would say ability) to extract the financial gains necessary to ever become commercially viable.

A world where Facebook becomes a utility like Verizon or a charity like Wikipedia is hardly likely to thrill investors and tech entrepreneurs. Then again, few people who change the world ever live to see the real fruits of their efforts.

If Zuckerberg is serious about fixing Facebook he needs to find a way to square the circle between regaining user trust and generating the returns expected by Wall Street.

For a man more concerned about his public appearance than his bank account, Mr Zuckerberg could do worse than consider what Facebook would look like if it became a true global public good rather than a Wall Street darling. The clock is ticking and the users are leaving.